4.5 Review

SEED FERNS FROM THE LATE PALEOZOIC AND MESOZOIC: ANY ANGIOSPERM ANCESTORS LURKING THERE?

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
Volume 96, Issue 1, Pages 237-251

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.3732/ajb.0800202

Keywords

angiosperm ancestors; caytonialeans; corystosperms; fossil plants; glossopterids; Mesozoic; peltasperms; Permian; seed plant phylogeny

Categories

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [OPP-0229877, ANT0635477]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Five orders of late Paleozoic-Mesozoic seed ferns have, at one time or another, figured in discussions oil the origin of angiosperms, even before the application of phylogenetic systematics. These are the Glossopteridales. Peltaspermales, Corystospermales, Caytoniales, and Petriellales. Although vegetative features have been used to suggest homologies, most discussion has focused on ovulate structures, which are generally interpreted as megasporophylls hearing seeds, with the seeds partially to almost completely enclosed by the megasporophyll (or cupule). Here we discuss current information about the reproductive parts of these plants. Since most specimens are impression-compression remains, homologizing the ovulate organs. deriving angiospermous homologues, and defining synapomorphies remain somewhat speculative. Although new specimens have increased the know]) diversity in these groups, a reconstruction of all entire plant is available only for the corystosperms, and thus hypotheses about phylogenetic position are of limited value. We conclude that, in the case of these seed plants, phylogenetic analysis techniques have surpassed the hard data needed to formulate meaningful phylogenetic hypotheses. Speculation on angiosperm origins and transitional stages in these fossils provides for interesting discussion, but currently it is still speculation. as the role of these groups in the origin of angiosperm continues to be cloaked in Darwin's mystery.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available